Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
TPR: Right to “Meaningfully Participate” in Hearing
State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 Issue/Holding: ¶2 Birth-parents “have constitutionally protected rights to raise their children as they see fit, and these rights may only be circumscribed if the government proves that there is a ‘powerful countervailing interest.’” Richard D. v. Rebecca G., 228 Wis. 2d 658, 661, 599 N.W.2d 90, 92 […]
TPR: (Imprisoned) Parent’s Telephonic Appearance and Right to “Meaningfully Participate” in Hearing
State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 Issue: Whether the right of a parent imprisoned in the federal system to “meaningfully participate” in a TPR proceeding was violated when he was not physically produced in court but, instead, was limited to telephonic participation. Holding: Where various mechanisms could have been utilized to produce the […]
Confrontation – Hearsay: Necessity of Showing Declarant’s Unavailability
State v. Daniel D. King, 2005WI App 224 For King: Scott D. Obernberger Issue/Holding: The confrontation clause requires that the hearsay declarant be unavailable to testify at trial “and, critically, that the State make a ‘good-faith effort’ to produce the declarant at trial,” ¶6. The trial court erred in determining that the declarant was truly […]
Statements – Suppression: Electronic Recording — Juveniles
State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, reversing 2004 WI App 9 For Terrell C.J.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶58 … All custodial interrogation of juveniles in future cases shall be electronically recorded where feasible, and without exception when questioning occurs at a place of detention. Audiotaping is sufficient to satisfy our requirement; however, […]
Statements – Voluntariness – Juveniles
State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, reversing 2004 WI App 9 For Terrell C.J.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Juvenile Jerrell C.J.’s in-custody confession was involuntary under totality of the circumstances – Jerrell’s “personal characteristics” militate against voluntariness: age (14); school records (average to failing grades) and IQ 84 (low to average); prior experience with […]
Postconviction Motions — § 974.06, Supports Interest-of-Justice Review by Supreme Court
State v. Ralph D. Armstrong, 2005 WI 119, reversing unpublished decision For Armstrong: Jerome Buting; Barry Scheck Issue/Holding: Supreme court has both statutory and inherent authority to order new trial in the interest of justice, even on collateral review (as opposed to direct appeal), ¶¶119-24. (State v. Allen, 159 Wis. 2d 53, 464 N.W.2d 426 […]
Discovery – DNA Testing, at Defendant’s Own Expense, § 974.07(6)
State v. James M. Moran, 2005 WI 115, reversing unpublished decision For Moran: Colleen D. Ball, State Bar Pro Bono Project Issue/Holding: ¶3 We conclude that the plain language of § 974.07(6) gives a movant the right to conduct DNA testing of physical evidence that is in the actual or constructive possession of a government […]
Waiver of Argument: Constitutionality of Statute – Facial Challenge
State v. Thomas H. Bush (III), 2005 WI 103, reversing in part and affirming on the merits, 2004 WI App 193 For Bush: Robert G. LeBell Issue/Holding: Although an “as applied” challenge to a statute may be waived, a facial challenge, in contradistinction, is not waivable, ¶17: ¶18 This rule is also entirely consistent with […]
Standards of Review: Administrative Decision – Certiorari, de novo in part
State ex rel. Leroy Riesch v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 11, summary order For Riesch: Christopher J. Cherella Issue/Holding: ¶13. Certiorari review for parole revocation is limited to four questions: “(1) whether the agency stayed within its jurisdiction; (2) whether it acted according to law; (3) whether its action was arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable, representing its will, […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Test, Generally
State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73< For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose Issue/Holding: ¶40 The test for this harmless error was set forth by the Supreme Court in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 […]
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.